I can't believe it isn't there. Why would you do this? It's not even like we couldn't do it in the last game.

I bought the silencer from the supply shack. It went on my semi-auto pistol. Which was all cool. But then I noticed I was also forced to have it equipped on revolvers. I don't want that. Just like I don't want a silencer on my Colt .44 Magnum (if I had one). Firstly because it's a big ass revolver, secondly I like the sound, and thirdly because it looks completely awful. More-so in the game.

I would also like to hear gunfire from the pistol. You don't always want or need a silencer, especially when you have silent bow.

So now, because you can't remove silencers, I'm completely avoiding doing one of the Ally side missions that gives you a silencer for the assault rifle. Why? Because attachments are automatically equipped from those missions and you wont be able to remove the silencer. I don't want a silencer on the "AK".

This is also an issue because I want to do all the Ally missions. I don't want the permanent silencer though. But without doing that mission you can't unlock that allies next mission...

What gives devs? Can you give us the ability to remove the silencer back please? :(

Tihocan

19th Nov 2015, 23:46

You can't really use gunfire as a lure so taking it off is not functionally necessary. I wouldn't say it's badly needed, but it would be nice.

CrambleOs

20th Nov 2015, 00:33

:mad: Not sure why the game developers spent so much attention to detail. Then turn around and took the ability to remove the silencer from your weapon away, WTF to that. Not sure who made that call but you people, and you know who you are need to fix that s--t with a patch of some sort. NOT A GOOD CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tihocan

20th Nov 2015, 00:38

Was it not implemented at all, rather than taken away?
Why so much anger over something that is generally inconsequential to gameplay?

CrambleOs

20th Nov 2015, 00:41

Its the little details that matter just as much as the big ones,

Relight-TRHQ

20th Nov 2015, 00:45

Multiple threads on this issue.

http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=183573

http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=183613

I compare it a bit to the bow upgrading in TR 2013. I really liked some of the basic bows but really disliked the ridiculous final bow, mostly for aesthetic reasons. But once you had that fancy contraption of a bow, you couldn't just use one of your previous bows.

Now if Lara ditches her old bow and keeps the new one, so she doesn't have to carry around all those weapons, that's understandable from a logic / story point of view.

But it makes little sense to NOT be able to remove a silencer. I can see how it would be pretty annoying for some of the reasons folks have been stating.

Tihocan

20th Nov 2015, 00:48

Its the little details that matter just as much as the big ones,
As a software quality engineer, I can tell you that is inaccurate. Severity and density are the key factors for how much they "matter".

Relight-TRHQ

20th Nov 2015, 01:05

As a software quality engineer, I can tell you that is inaccurate. Severity and density are the key factors for how much they "matter".
I think it depends on what your definition of "what matters" is.

When you're talking about gameplay experience, I would absolutely include the little details in the idea of "what matters."

There's also the factor of expectation. Tomb Raider has entered the world of weapon customization and upgrades and skills, and by doing that, Crystal is still finding their feet for the formula for what level of detail to get into and what options make sense to Tomb Raider, but also what players expect in terms of options for this type of gameplay mechanic with comparisons to other games.

Tihocan

20th Nov 2015, 01:34

I think it depends on what your definition of "what matters" is.

When you're talking about gameplay experience, I would absolutely include the little details in the idea of "what matters."

There's also the factor of expectation. Tomb Raider has entered the world of weapon customization and upgrades and skills, and by doing that, Crystal is still finding their feet for the formula for what level of detail to get into and what options make sense to Tomb Raider, but also what players expect in terms of options for this type of gameplay mechanic with comparisons to other games.

From a software quality standpoint, not having the ability to remove a silencer does not matter nearly as much as, say, a usable weapon switching mechanism.
S/he complains, but does not indicate why it is so important. For example, I could complain that when Lara lines up two people for simultaneous headshots, she does not string two arrows. Or that the silencer is of unlimited durability in nature. Am I angry about it?

I could give you a hundred "attention to detail" issues in Tomb Raider, but severity to the experience is more important. If not having a silencer gave you the ability to cause diversions or lure enemies, I would understand the displeasure.

Lastly, a response in the vein of "your attention to detail is high, but I will lose my s* at you for this one particular detail that is wholly cosmetic in nature" is an overreaction.

Relight-TRHQ

20th Nov 2015, 02:05

As a software quality engineer ... From a software quality standpoint ... that is inaccurate
I have to admit that these remarks put me off a bit. They come across as "I'm a software quality engineer, I have the correct answer, you're wrong."

but severity to the experience is more important. If not having a silencer gave you the ability to cause diversions or lure enemies, I would understand the displeasure.
That's where we disagree. Yes, I agree the OP took an approach that perhaps wasn't the best and they didn't detail why they felt it was a problem. That's why I pointed out some other threads, and framed my reply in the context of those other posts, which did give some details as to why not being able to remove the silencer was annoying - which you simply discounted, because you were right and they were wrong.

Here's the thing - severity to the experience is subjective. I put in a bit of a rant on a few topics over here (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=183625&goto=newpost) (points 7 through 9), while I suspect that other people might not consider the things I feel strongly about to have the same amount of severity.

No hard feelings :)

Tihocan

20th Nov 2015, 02:48

I have to admit that these remarks put me off a bit. They come across as "I'm a software quality engineer, I have the correct answer, you're wrong."
*shrug* how else am I supposed to put it? I've been a part of the industry for a decade. This statement is the actual truth of software quality, which includes user experience and defect management, as I have learned in those ten years and through official training. Some issues do not matter as much as others.
If you want me to argue the point, I will, at length. Should I have some shame in indicating that I may believe I know what I'm talking about because of my job title?
I never discounted it as an "issue" at all, but I challenged his response and statement that

Its the little details that matter just as much as the big ones
I offered them the indication that indeed, density of these issues is a major factor. But frankly I will not accept the statement as a valid argument without some reasonable clarification as to why they think so.

That's where we disagree. Yes, I agree the OP took an approach that perhaps wasn't the best and they didn't detail why they felt it was a problem. That's why I pointed out some other threads, and framed my reply in the context of those other posts, which did give some details as to why not being able to remove the silencer was annoying - which you simply discounted, because you were right and they were wrong.

Here's the thing - severity to the experience is subjective. I put in a bit of a rant on a few topics over here (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=183625&goto=newpost) (points 7 through 9), while I suspect that other people might not consider the things I feel strongly about to have the same amount of severity.

No hard feelings :)
I think you misunderstood my position. I posed a question (which they ignored) and then asked why they were so angry.
Reading your points written in a detailed, non aggressive fashion is a large contrast to "I DON'T LIKE IT, CHANGE IT".
Did I agree with 7 - 9? Yes and to a lesser degree no, but I understand how and why you feel about them the way you do.

Severity is indeed subjective - to a point. But there is a point, defined by impact. e.g. an audio/visual displeasure like a gawky suppressor is worse than a spelling error in text, a crash defect is worse than a audio/visual issue like a suppressor, a savegame/data loss defect is worse than crash.

As it is, my suppressor actually sits suspended in front of my rifle (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=183486), like some futuristic super-rifle. But that does not compare to the issue where half the objects in the game worlds weren't drawn, as the impact was far higher.

I'll say again - I did not discount their issue. It's reasonable. I discounted their level of engagement.
Also, I'll happily say as a QE again that it's always best to take the positive approach first. ;)
As muh mama always sayed, "yuh catch mo' bees wif flowers dan a shotgun".
My mother never said that.
Of course there's no hard feelings :)

Tecstar70

20th Nov 2015, 07:16

Don't understand the fuss. Doesn't bother me....

Tecstar70

20th Nov 2015, 10:12

I wouldn't say it was badly needed, but I guess i'm not that bothered.

aieeeee

20th Nov 2015, 11:12

It does bother other people though. More than you think. And yes, they go down the route of adding upgrades, like the last game, but then don't give you the ability to remove the silencer like you could in the last game. All it needs is a button press. What's the hardship there?

Tihocan

21st Nov 2015, 01:14

It does bother other people though. More than you think. And yes, they go down the route of adding upgrades, like the last game, but then don't give you the ability to remove the silencer like you could in the last game.
I understand the bother. It does look pretty average (it's a suppressor, after all) and sometimes you just want the meaty bang of a gun.
I don't understand the anger.

All it needs is a button press. What's the hardship there?
That's a big assumption. A button press can introduce days or even weeks of implementation and testing, depending on the architecture.

Valenka

21st Nov 2015, 17:06

I think one important detail in regard to realism/verisimilitude is in cutscenes, when Lara or anyone else uses a handgun, the slide doesn't cycle back and forth when firing, or lock back when it's empty. I'm not really sure how that got overlooked, but oh well.

aieeeee

23rd Nov 2015, 13:36

I understand the bother. It does look pretty average (it's a suppressor, after all) and sometimes you just want the meaty bang of a gun.
I don't understand the anger.

That's a big assumption. A button press can introduce days or even weeks of implementation and testing, depending on the architecture.

lol, not anger, just bemusement and disappointment, which in turn takes away enjoyment.

Frankie_Drums

28th Nov 2015, 19:06

As a software quality engineer, I can tell you that is inaccurate. Severity and density are the key factors for how much they "matter".

As an Operations Manager I can tell from your posts that you have little-to-no customer service experience. I deal with QA daily and we don't allow them to interact with customers because they typically give responses such as you did.

FIRST: Never invalidate a customer's feelings. Do not tell them that their concern is "generally inconsequential to gameplay" or does not "matter," and never tell them that they are overreacting. Treat customers as people whose opinions have value and deserve consideration.

SECOND: Don't focus on what can't be done. Speak in positives, even when dealing with the omission of a feature. For example:

"In Rise of the Tomb Raider, stealth, melee, archery and guns work together to form a seamless combat system. In order to afford players as many options as possible when approaching combat, many of the game systems integrate stealth. This includes the option to add silencers to all weapons upon the completion of optional side quests. Player choice is the focus of the Tomb Raider experience and the ability to add silencers to any weapon is one of the many ways this is demonstrated."

See? Make the customer feel like they're getting something instead of pushing them around.

Driber

29th Nov 2015, 12:28

I can't help but be reminded of Tom Smykowski from Office Space, lol.

gR7HDERBCQE&end=73

You can't really use gunfire as a lure so taking it off is not functionally necessary.

I would argue that the devs implemented all those different ways of taking down Lara's enemies to provide the player a choice and give them a sense of freedom to make their gaming experience their own. You can choose to take down enemies completely stealth-like or you can go in guns blazing, for example.

So with that in mind it only seems counter-productive to then take away said freedom from the player by making the silencer mandatory. I don't see the logic in forcing the player to play in stealth mode when previously they had the option of the going-in-guns-blazing mode.

You can say "well, going in guns blazing isn't functional", but how exactly is functionality the ultimate argument winner in a videogame that is meant to provide people with fun?

(Hey, you can't spell functionality with fun :D)

Seriously, we have freaking chicken bombs in this game. So much for functionality :p

I have to admit that these remarks put me off a bit. They come across as "I'm a software quality engineer, I have the correct answer, you're wrong."

I agree, it kind of does. And what's more: one could make the exact opposite argument from a "quality engineer perspective" - there is a lot of R&D going into exactly these kinds of subtle details because the smallest of detail can make a world of difference in user experience. Companies like Apple invest big money into things like making the sound of a button press on an iPod as pleasant as possible to the consumer; something one might consider a "small and insignificant detail" :whistle:

*shrug* how else am I supposed to put it?

I think what Brandon was trying to say with the "off putting" comment is that you are seen as trying to dictate people how they should feel rather than just share your own personal opinions and preferences, and using your job to bolster this.

To give you an example:

From a software quality standpoint, not having the ability to remove a silencer does not matter nearly as much as, say, a usable weapon switching mechanism.

[..]

I could give you a hundred "attention to detail" issues in Tomb Raider, but severity to the experience is more important.

^ Here you basically appear to be telling the person that your opinion on what is important is the correct opinion. In other words, you're saying that their opinion on what is important to them is wrong.

I think the lack of "IMO" or "I think" combined with the "from a professional POV"-attitude is making a world of difference here in how your input is being received by others.

Lastly, a response in the vein of "your attention to detail is high, but I will lose my s* at you for this one particular detail that is wholly cosmetic in nature" is an overreaction.

I find it ironic that you're telling people they are overreacting when you seemingly doing the same, and in the very same sentence no less. How is anyone here "losing their s*"? Because of too many exclamation marks? Because a ":mad:" emoticon, or a thumbs down emoticon?

As for "wholly cosmetic in nature" - did anyone say it's just because of cosmetics? The vibe I'm getting is that people don't like the way it sounds and the way it affects their gameplay experience. They want to be able to go in guns blazing, not be forced to go stealth mode.

Also, white ledges is also arguable cosmetics. Yet people are severely pissed off at them. And rightfully so, IMO.

I did not discount their issue. It's reasonable. I discounted their level of engagement.

Which I think was reasonable, too. I found it to be proportional enough; it's not like they sent the devs death and rape threats because they can't take a virtual silencer off of a virtual gun.

aieeeee

3rd Dec 2015, 11:16

Haven't actually played this for about two weeks now even though I'm not even 50% completed. What with Fallout 4 (with the choice of a silencer or not on any gun), and Just Cause 3, I'm actually not in a rush to go back to this with the lack of ability to play how I want, despite it being a great game.

It's just the little things like this that can really dampen the experience and enjoyment, for me anyway. That niggle is always there in the mind knowing that you can't remove the silencer to go in blazing with a different approach, or that you can't do certain missions because the reward for the mission will force a silencer on other weapons.

The little things can make a big difference...

a_big_house

3rd Dec 2015, 12:30

The little things can make a big difference...

Said every guy ever.

:D

Valenka

3rd Dec 2015, 16:32

I wouldn't go as far as calling this a drastic issue, but it is something that should be addressed. I liked that in Tomb Raider, the silencer/suppressor allowed for silent kills, but I very much appreciated the fact that it could be removed and reattached at will. I'm not sure why that feature wasn't carried over for Rise of the Tomb Raider, but I definitely think it should be implemented down the line.

Especially considering that a silencer/suppressor on a revolver or a Desert Eagle is just nonsensical. I mean, it's great that you don't have to unlock attachments and upgrades for each and every gun in a category - it's great that they're shared - but I wish there was an option to enable/disable attachments and upgrades, just for variety. That's why I'm super picky and selective with my weapon upgrades. I'll upgrade the bows to the high heavens, but I'm very selective with the firearms.

For example, I might want a counterweight and extended magazine on the Accipter Nox, but not on the Desert Eagle. I may want a muzzle brake on the Semi Auto handgun, but I don't want it on the revolvers.

a_big_house

4th Dec 2015, 19:00

For example, I might want a counterweight and extended magazine on the Accipter Nox, but not on the Desert Eagle. I may want a muzzle brake on the Semi Auto handgun, but I don't want it on the revolvers.

Are the standard (non purchasable) upgrades not removable too? Seems like for actual customization, everything should be removable and fully customizable

Valenka

6th Dec 2015, 01:04

Are the standard (non purchasable) upgrades not removable too? Seems like for actual customization, everything should be removable and fully customizable

Nothing is removable.

aieeeee

8th Dec 2015, 18:49

No word on the first update yet?

a_big_house

9th Dec 2015, 12:27

Nothing is removable.
I know, it sucks

No word on the first update yet?
The first update went out a while ago afaik, I wouldn't expect them to ever patch this though

Chris85666

13th Dec 2015, 14:45

The same here i hate a silencer on the Nagant M1985 and AK47M .http://www.gunpics.net/russian/nagant/nagant4.JPG And i think the knife is on a wrong tactical postion bether is on her Holster see on the pic